UC-NRLF 


Q    D 

75 

H6 

1917 

CHEM 


ANALYTICAL  CHEMISTRY 
AND  ITS  FUTURE 


BY 
WILLIAM  FRANCIS  HILLEBRAND,  PH.D. 

"I  Chief  Chemist  of  the  Bureau  of  Standards 
Washington,  D.  C. 


gorfe 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1917 


lU 


LIBRARY 

UhflVIRSiTYCI 


OUR  ANALYTICAL  CHEMISTRY 
AND  ITS  FUTURE 


THE  CHANDLER  LECTURE 
1916 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
SALES  AGENTS 

NEW  YORK: 

LEMCKE  &  BUECHNER 
30-32  WEST  27TH  STREET 

LONDON: 

HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
AMEN  CORNER,  E.C. 


OUR  ANALYTICAL  CHEMISTRY 
AND  ITS  FUTURE 


BY 
WILLIAM  FRANCIS  HILLEBRAND,  PH.D. 

Chief  Chemist  of  the  Bureau  of  Standards 
Washington,  D.  C. 


JJeto  gorfe 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1917 

All  rights  reserved 


COPYRIGHT,  1917 
By  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


Printed  from  type,  January  1917 


UNIVERSITY  PRINTING  OFFICE 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


OUR  ANALYTICAL  CHEMISTRY  AND 
ITS  FUTURE  i 

IN  an  address2  read  at  Philadelphia  nearly  twelve  years 
ago,  I  gave  expression  to  some  thoughts  on  the  condition 
of  analytical  chemistry  in  our  country  as  the  condition 
appeared  to  me  then  to  be.  Those  thoughts  were  based 
on  an  experience  of  many  years,  during  which  I  was  en- 
gaged wholly  in  analytical  work  of  a  more  than  ordinarily 
exacting  nature,  and  especially  upon  observations  that 
had  been  acquired  in  connection  with  several  series  of 
cooperative  analyses  of  diverse  materials.  Since  then  my 
attention  has  been  no  less  given  to  analysis,  largely  for 
the  past  eight  years  in  a  supervisory  capacity,  however, 
and  I  have  had  opportunity  to  note  the  conditions  that 
now  prevail  with  respect  to  chemical  analysis  and  what 
an  important  bearing  exact  analytical  work  often  has  on 
problems  of  physical  and  electrochemistry,  metallurgy,  etc. 
It  seems  to  me  then  that  I  can  choose  no  more  fitting 
subject  for  my  present  discourse  than  a  continuation  of 
one  so  closely  related  to  my  life-work,  one  in  which  I  feel 
a  deep  interest  and  of  which  I  may  be  presumed  to  have 
knowledge  somewhat  worth  presenting  on  an  occasion 
like  this.  Then,  too,  since  my  remarks  will  apply  most 
directly  to  analysis  as  it  concerns  the  producers  of  the 
raw  materials  and  the  users  of  the  products  of  applied 
science,  the  subject  is  eminently  a  proper  one  for  the 

1  To  several  of  my  colleagues  in  the  Bureau  of  Standards,  to  whom  the  first 
draft  of  this  address  was  submitted,  I  am  under  obligations  for  suggestions  that 
have  been  most  helpful  in  its  further  elaboration. 

2  J.  Am.  Chem.  Soc.,  Vol.  27,  p.  300  (1905). 

5 


present  occasion,  and  particularly  so  in  an  institution 
where  applied  chemistry  made  one  of  its  important  starts 
in  this  country,  in  the  old  School  of  Mines,  with  which 
the  name  of  Chandler  is  so  inseparably  connected. 

Although  I  shall  cover  now  some  of  the  ground  trav- 
ersed in  my  address  of  twelve  years  ago,  in  briefly  allud- 
ing to  the  conditions  of  analytical  chemistry  in  the  pres- 
ent year,  1916,  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  developing  one 
or  two  of  the  ideas  then  simmering  in  my  mind  and  other 
phases  of  the  general  subject  not  then  mentioned.  So  my 
subject  calls  for  a  more  unrestricted  title  than  I  gave  it 
at  that  time,  and  I  shall  speak  to  you  of  our  analytical 
chemistry  and  its  future,  purposely  restricting  myself  to 
a  consideration  of  conditions  as  they  exist  and  may  be- 
come in  this  country. 

In  the  early  days  of  chemistry  there  was  needed  a  vast 
accumulation  of  observations  to  serve  as  foundations  for 
the  development  of  the  science.  At  the  very  basis  lay 
the  need  for  knowledge  of  the  composition  of  all  kinds  of 
matter.  Hence,  it  came  about  that  many,  if  not  most,  of 
the  great  chemists  of  the  time  were  of  necessity  analysts, 
and  the  analytical  branch  of  chemistry  stood  in  high  re- 
pute. That  this  condition  did  not  maintain  itself,  that 
chemical  analysis  during  the  latter  half  of  the  past  cen- 
tury fell  from  its  high  estate  and  came  to  be  looked  upon 
more  or  less  as  a  handy  tool  for  ulterior  ends,  a  tool, 
moreover,  which  need  not  for  most  purposes  be  of  the 
sharpest  or  the  best,  or  entrusted  only  to  the  most  careful 
and  skilled  operators — all  this  has  been  recognized  and 
lamented  by  many.  The  reasons  for  the  fall  are  also  well 
enough  known  and  need  not  be  discussed  at  length,  but 
brief  reference  to  some  of  them  will  be  needed  in  view  of 
later  remarks. 

Chief  among  the  reasons  for  the  neglect  of  analytical 

6 


chemistry  is  the  enormous  development,  first  of  organic 
chemistry  and  later  of  the  so-called  physical  chemistry. 
The  effect  was  brought  about  in  two  ways:  (i)  by  mere 
displacement,  as  it  were,  owing  to  the  far  greater  promise 
of  new  discoveries,  however  commonplace,  or  because 
of  the  strong  interest  attaching  to  new  and  unexplored 
fields  of  inquiry;  (2)  by  the  unfortunate  fact  that  for  a 
long  period  approximate  analytical  results  were  thought 
to  suffice  in  most  of  the  industries,  and  even  in  scientific 
researches.  This  meant  that  slipshod  work  and  methods 
came  more  and  more  into  use,  and  less  fundamental  knowl- 
edge of  analysis  seemed  to  be  demanded  of  chemists — 
all  of  which  reacted  unfavorably  upon  the  standing  of  the 
analytical  profession,  tending  to  discredit  it  as  a  whole, 
even  though  it  held  members  fit  to  rank  with  the  illus- 
trious pioneers. 

In  addition,  some  chemists  came  to  feel  that  the  field 
was  an  exhausted  one,  offering  little  to  reward  the 
research  worker.  How  little  this  is  true  the  events  of 
recent  years  have  abundantly  shown.  The  growing 
sense  of  the  important  influence  of  small,  even  minute, 
amounts  of  this  or  that  element  or  combination  in  a 
given  material,  and  the  high  value  of  many  ores  and  com- 
mercial products,  has  led  to  more  critical  examination 
of  the  methods  used  for  determining  the  content  of  the 
substances  in  question  in  order  to  ascertain  with  greater 
precision  the  value  of  those  materials,  just  as  had  been 
done  long  before  for  the  precious  metals,  gold  and  silver. 
Such  examination  revealed  not  infrequently  unsuspected 
defects  in  methods  regarded  hitherto  as  reliable  and  ac- 
curate, and  that  good  results  were  due  often  to  com- 
pensation of  errors  or  were  to  be  had  only  within  a  narrow 
range  of  conditions.  One  good  effect  of  such  investiga- 
tions has  been  to  make  conservative  analysts  distrustful 

7 


of  all  new  methods  and  less  reliant  on  some  of  the  old 
ones  until  their  worth  and  suitability  have  been  put  to 
far  more  crucial  test  than  was  formerly  deemed  necessary. 

Yet  notwithstanding  improvements  made  in  important 
methods  through  painstaking  research,  it  is  evident  that 
many  methods  will  require  a  study  differently  directed 
or  more  profound  than  any  yet  made  before  light  enough 
to  meet  even  our  immediate  needs  is  thrown  upon  them. 
And  who  shall  say  what  needs  another  century  or  even 
decade  may  bring  forth?  Are  we  not  again  and  again 
even  now  confronted  with  the  need  to  determine  smaller 
and  smaller  amounts  of  a  component  and  to  make  more 
and  more  perfect  separations  in  order  that  the  first  may 
be  possible?  Are  we  to  assume  that  a  limit  has  been 
reached? 

Another  fact  shows  how  untrue  it  is  that  the  field  of 
chemical  analysis  has  little  new  to  offer.  Few  ever 
thought,  not  so  long  ago,  to  look  for  the  rarer  elements 
in  an  ore  or  industrial  product  made  from  the  ores.  No 
use  whatsoever  was  made  of  certain  elements  that  are 
now  serving  most  useful  ends,  either  by  themselves  or 
in  combinations.  There  are  other  elements,  still  chem- 
ical curiosities,  for  which  no  use  has  yet  been  found.  Is 
there  any  more  reason  to  believe  for  them  than  for  the 
others  that  uses  will  never  be  found?  Rare  though  they 
be,  like  gallium,  indium,  and  germanium,  and  costly 
their  extraction,  the  finding  of  a  use  for  them  will  broaden 
the  search  for  their  ores  and  lessen  the  cost  of  production. 
With  use  will  come  a  demand  for  methods  of  separation 
and  determination,  which  must  be  accurate  because  of 
the  small  percentages  in  question  or  the  enormous  value 
of  the  material. 

But  there  are  other  fields  in  which  the  chemist  has 
to  look  to  analysis  of  the  highest  order  for  help  in  solving 

8 


his  problems.  For  instance,  the  importance  of  exact 
analytical  methods  in  connection  with  physico-chemical 
researches  is  very  great  and  is,  perhaps,  best  illustrated 
in  the  preparation  of  pure  materials.  There  is  no  question 
that  physical  constants,  even  atomic  weights,  have  been 
determined,  not  infrequently,  upon  materials  of  doubtful 
or  at  least  unproved  purity.  The  practice  is  all  too  com- 
mon of  assuming  that  a  certain  number  of  crystallizations 
or  distillations  is  sure  to  yield  a  product  of  highest  purity. 
Conclusive  results  can  be  obtained  only  when  methods 
are  devised  and  applied  by  which  the  amounts  of  any 
possible  contaminant  present  can  be  proved  to  be  without 
influence  upon  the  results  sought.  A  single  instance, 
borrowed  from  the  experience  of  the  Bureau  of  Standards 
may  be  of  interest.  In  the  preparation  of  pure  alcohol 
to  be  used  in  the  determination  of  a  series  of  densities, 
tests  were  devised  or  confirmed  for  detecting  the  presence 
of  minute  amounts  of  ether,  aldehyde,  methyl  alcohol, 
and  water.  The  most  delicate  test  for  the  latter  was 
found  to  be  the  critical  solution  temperature  of  mixtures 
of  kerosene  and  the  alcohol  to"  be  tested.  By  this  means 
the  presence  of  o.ooi  per  cent,  of  water  in  the  alcohol 
could  be  readily  detected. 

In  the  field  of  electrochemistry  there  is  a  similar  need 
for  exact  analytical  data.  In  the  determination  of  the 
electrochemical  equivalent  of  silver,  from  which  the  value 
of  the  ampere  is  derived,  researches  extending  over  sev- 
eral years  have  shown  that  the  purity  of  the  electrolyte 
is  of  fundamental  importance.  Thus,  it  was  found  that 
the  presence  in  the  electrolyte  of  the  amount  of  organic 
matter  derived  from  filter  paper  by  the  passage  through 
it  of  the  distilled  water  used,  was  sufficient  to  cause  an 
appreciable  effect  upon  the  structure  and  weight  of  the 
silver  deposit.  In  this  case  delicate  analytical  proced- 

9 


ures  were  devised  for  detecting  minute  amounts  of  such 
contaminants.  In  the  same  research  the  study  of  the 
magnitude  of  possible  occlusions  in  the  silver  deposits  has 
involved  the  use  of  painstaking  analytical  methods  at  the 
Bureau  and  elsewhere. 

Similarly,  it  is  believed  that  the  securing  of  accurate 
information  regarding  the  operation  of  commercial  baths 
for  electrodeposition  will  depend  largely  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  exact  analytical  methods.  Thus,  preliminary 
observations  have  shown  that  very  slight  differences  in 
the  neutrality  of  nickel  baths  may  produce  great  effects 
upon  their  operation.  Here  the  application  of  the  hydro- 
gen electrode  as  an  analytical  tool  will  probably  be  of 
service.  The  great  number  of  empirical  observations  re- 
garding the  effect  of  addition  agents  in  plating  baths  will 
become  intelligible  only  when  means  are  found  and  ap- 
plied for  determining  quantitatively  minute  amounts  of 
the  addition  agents  (for  instance,  one  part  per  million  of 
glue)  or  of  their  decomposition  products. 

The  application  of  some  of  the  concepts  of  the  modern 
theoretical  chemistry  has  helped  much  to  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  limitations  of  some  common  methods,  of 
how  to  reduce  the  errors  of  one  or  another  of  them  within 
more  or  less  acceptable  bounds,  and  of  why  others  are  not 
open  to  improvement.  The  same  principles  applied  to 
the  development  of  new  methods  will,  it  is  to  be  hoped, 
lead  more  quickly  to  success  than  in  the  past,  by  enabling 
the  discoverer  to  take  account  from  the  start  of  earlier 
mistakes  or  omissions  and  thus  avoid  the  wasted  effort 
that  has  been  all  too  common. 

At  this  point  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  point  out  certain 
criticisms  that  apply  to  many  new  methods  as  first  pub- 
lished. Almost  no  new  method  that  has  been  proposed 
has  been  so  rigorously  worked  out  as  to  show  all  or  nearly 

10 


all  of  its  limitations.  Generally  the  start  is  with  the  pre- 
sumably pure  single  substance  and  the  amounts  operated 
upon  are  of  considerable  magnitude  and  do  not  cover  a 
wide  range  of  weights.  This  is  not  so  serious  a  defect  as 
to  omit  trying  out  a  method  that  involves  separations 
from  other  substances  under  a  wide  range  of  conditions 
as  to  relative  and  absolute  amounts  of  the  elements  or 
compounds  in  question.  A  whole  list  is  often  given  of 
results  obtained  in  presence  of  other  elements,  but  al- 
most always  the  amount  of  the  substance  sought  is  con- 
siderable. No  light  is  shed  on  the  value  of  the  method 
when  that  substance  is  in  very  small  amount  and  the  other 
greatly  preponderates.  Nor,  in  too  many  cases,  is  any 
proof  afforded  that  results  apparently  good  are  really 
good  and  that  more  or  less  serious  compensating  errors 
are  not  involved.  The  consequence  is  often,  as  I  have  said, 
that  one  cannot  take  new  methods  at  their  face  value  or 
proceed  to  apply  them  under  any  and  all  conditions. 
They  must  first  be  more  critically  examined  in  order  to 
complete  and  round  out  the  work  that  was  neglected. 
How  this  can  be  done  will  be  discussed  later. 

What  I  have  just  said  is  not  to  be  taken  as  necessarily 
reflecting  upon  the  deviser  of  the  incomplete  method,  nor 
need  it  deter  others  from  trying  to  originate  new  methods 
or  to  improve  old  ones.  There  will  be  and  must  always 
be  road-breakers  and  pioneer  surveyors.  Some  fertile 
minds  are  fitted  to  make  brilliant  reconnaissances  and  un- 
fitted for  the  laborious  working  in  of  details.  Both  types 
of  chemical  workers  are  needed.  The  former  will  still 
find  ample  opportunity  for  flights  of  invention  and  there 
will  be  no  lack  of  room  for  the  able  and  painstaking  delver 
into  the  depths. 

In  the  address  already  alluded  to  and  elsewhere  I 
dwelt  upon  the  unsatisfactory  condition  in  which  the  art 

ii 


of  analysis  had  been  shown  to  be  and  expressed  the  con- 
viction that  our  educational  institutions  must  bear  a  large 
share  of  the  blame  in  the  matter.  The  faults  which  might 
be  chargeable  were  perhaps  more  often  those  of  omission 
than  of  commission,  but  I  was  able  to  point  out  no  cer- 
tain or  even  likely  way  which  might  lead  to  a  better 
future.  I  think  it  may  be  worth  while  to  reproduce  cer- 
tain paragraphs,  with  slight  rearrangement,  to  serve  not 
only  as  groundwork  for  what  is  to  follow,  but  also  as  pos- 
sibly suggestive  leaders  to  those  of  you  who  are  or  expect 
to  become  analytical  chemists  or  teachers  of  analytical 
chemistry. 

"Many  inquiries  addressed  to  the  participants  in  one 
series  of  analyses  elicited  the  information  that  few  knew 
anything  definite  about  the  quality  of  the  water  they 
were  using,  though  examination  showed  it  to  be  bad  in 
a  few  instances  and  on  the  border  line  in  others.  Still 
less  was  known  as  to  the  quality  of  the  reagents,  except 
that  they  came  from  reputable  firms.  One  admitted 
that  a  flaky  sediment  showed  in  his  ammonia  bottle,  but 
he  used  only  the  clear  liquid  above.  If  the  sediment 
represented  silica  from  the  bottle,  as  it  may  well  have 
done,  what  had  become  of  the  other  constituents  of  the 
attacked  glass  unless  they  were  in  solution? 

"Now  why  were  these  things  possible  unless  because 
it  had  never  been  sufficiently  impressed  upon  the  analysts 
in  their  student  days  that  without  proper  tools  to  work 
with,  among  which  water  and  reagents  are  first  to  be 
considered,  good  work  is  impossible?  You  doubtless  do 
not  fail  rightly  to  tell  them  that  absolute  accuracy  is 
unattainable  in  analysis,  but  do  you  make  it  plain  that 
approximation  is  possible  and  that  it  will  be  the  closer 
the  greater  the  care  bestowed  upon  the  tools  and  at  every 
step  of  the  analysis  itself?  Is  a  student  ever  required 

12 


to  find  out  by  actual  test  how  good  his  water  is  and  both 
the  kind  and  amount  of  its  contamination,  if  such  there 
be?  Is  it  customary  to  instruct  him  in  the  testing  of 
his  reagents  and  as  to  the  character  of  the  contaminations 
to  be  looked  for  in  all  of  the  more  important  ones,  or  is 
he  allowed  to  go  forth  with  the  impression  that  the  label 
C.  P.,  while  not  a  flawless  title,  is  a  sufficient  guarantee 
for  all  the  demands  of  technical  analysis?  Is  he,  in  fact, 
ever  cautioned  to  find  out,  by  actual  test,  the  errors  with 
which  his  work  may  be  affected,  due  to  imperfections  in 
his  tools  of  the  kind  just  mentioned?  And  that  without 
such  knowledge  and  the  ability  to  make  correction  for 
the  defects,  or  the  courage  to  fight  for  better  materials 
with  which  to  do,  he  will  occupy  a  false  position  with 
respect  to  himself,  his  employers  and  the  community  at 
large? 

"Is  the  student's  work  ever  checked  against  material 
of  which  the  exact  composition  is  known?  I  do  not  refer 
here  to  such  things  as  simple  salts,  but  to  more  complex 
bodies  like  limestone,  cement,  zinc  ore  or  slag,  in  which 
many  separations  have  to  be  made  and  all  constituents 
should  be  determined.  Is  the  student  in  such  analyses 
religiously  required  to  test  the  purity  of  his  precipitates 
and  the  completeness  of  his  precipitations  by  a  careful 
examination  of  the  filtrates?  And  is  he  taught  that  a 
satisfactory  summation  does  not  imply  correct  separa- 
tions? Or  that  closely  agreeing  duplicates  are  not  proof 
of  good  work? 

"Only  by  such  exercises  can  the  young  worker  gain 
any  knowledge  as  to  his  own  power  to  do  good  work,  and 
acquire  that  proper  confidence  in  himself  which  is  so 
essential. 

"My  experience  of  the  past  few  years  has  convinced 
me  that  in  these  respects,  at  least,  much  is  neglected  that 

13 


should  not  be  neglected  in  the  curricula  of  our  colleges. 
It  seems  to  me  that  if  instruction  in  such  fundamental 
essentials  is  not  thoroughly  drilled  into  the  budding 
chemist,  so  that  it  becomes  for  him  as  much  a  matter  of 
course  afterwards  to  look  to  the  quality  of  his  tools  as 
it  is  to  weigh  out  his  sample  before  analyzing  it,  he  has 
received  a  scant  equivalent  for  his  years  of  study,  and  that 
he  has  good  grounds  of  complaint  against  his  alma  mater 
if  he  comes  to  grief  by  reason  of  her  neglect." 

To  the  foregoing  reasons  for  poor  results  may  be 
added  the  youthfulness  and  inexperience  of  most  of  the 
instructors  in  quantitative  as  well  as  qualitative  analysis. 
There  must  be  young  instructors,  of  course,  but  one  of 
the  rules  which  should  hold  for  the  young  child  in  the 
Kindergarten  or  Montessori  school  ought  to  hold  here 
too,  namely,  that  the  work  should  be  led  by  or  at  least 
most  closely  controlled  by  one  of  experience  and  authority 
and  of  sympathetic  insight. 

If  the  conditions  which  I  have  sketched  were  true  twelve 
years  ago  the  question  will  be  asked,  and  quite  naturally: 
Have  they  improved?  Candor  compels  me  to  say  that 
evidences  of  improvement  are  few.  In  certain  lines  of 
work  there  has  been  some  bettering  of  conditions,  but  we 
are  still  confronted  with  wide  divergences  in  almost 
every  direction  between  the  results  obtained  by  different 
analysts  upon  the  same  sample.  I  have  many  oppor- 
tunities to  note  this  fact  in  the  cooperative  work  which 
is  done  upon  the  samples  which  the  Bureau  of  Standards 
issues  as  standards  for  checking  the  skill  of  analysts  or 
the  value  of  methods  used  in  industrial  laboratories  and 
educational  institutions.  The  fact  is  further  emphasized 
by  the  numerous  requests  received  at  the  Bureau  for 
umpire  assays  to  settle  the  differences  between  commer- 
cial analysts,  and  still  further  by  the  comparative  lack 

14 


of  sound  or  comprehensive  knowledge  of  analysis  among 
the  young  men  who  come  to  us  from  the  colleges  and 
universities. 

While  I  believe  now  quite  as  strongly  as  I  did  twelve  years 
ago,  that  our  educational  institutions  are  not  doing  their  full 
duty^by  their  students  in  respect  to  the  analytical  branch 
of  chemistry,  I  see  no  way  by  which  the  situation  is  to  be 
relieved  much  under  the  prevailing  educational  system. 
Classes  are  too  large  and  competent  instructors  too  few 
for  that  individual  oversight  which  is  so  essential  to  the 
attainment  of  the  best  results,  and  too  little  time  can  be 
devoted  to  analysis  by  students  because  of  the  multi- 
farious demands  made  upon  them  in  other  directions. 
The  conditions  are  far  different  from  what  they  were,  for 
instance,  in  Bunsen's  laboratory,  when  students  averaged 
two  or  three  lectures  a  day  and  ambitious  ones  put  in 
nearly  all  the  rest  of  six  days  a  week  in  the  laboratory 
free  from  the  harassing  incubus  of  impending  term  exam- 
inations. This  comparison  is  not  made  in  a  spirit  of 
complaint,  but  merely  to  contrast  ideal  conditions,  that 
have  probably  passed  away  even  in  Germany,  with  those 
which  we  have  to  face. 

If  the  defects  noted  are  to  be  corrected  in  a  measure,  I 
see  no  way  by  which  to  accomplish  this  except  by  increas- 
ing the  number  of  teachers,  and  by  extending  the  period 
of  academic  instruction,  especially  for  those  who  contem- 
plate following  the  most  intricate  art  of  analysis  profes- 
sionally and  not  merely  as  a  prelude  to  something  else 
which  may  bring  greater  financial  returns.  The  adoption 
of  this  course,  so  often  suggested,  seems  rather  remote, 
yet  it  should  certainly  be  adopted  if  we  are  ever  to  have 
a  really  competent  body  of  instructors.  As  instructors 
they  would  enter  upon  their  teaching  career  with  better 
preparation  and  wider  experience,  but  this  alone  is  not 

15 


enough.  Time  should  be  accorded  them,  while  teaching, 
to  gain  further  experience  in  all  manner  of  analytical 
procedures  and  to  keep  abreast  of  the  advances  made  in 
the  art  of  analysis.  The  benefits  that  would  follow  such 
changes  would  soon  be  manifest,  but  I  doubt  much  if  the 
exacting  requirements  of  a  great  deal  of  our  analytical 
practice  would  be  fully  met  by  them,  so  additional  aids 
would  still  be  welcome. 

One  of  these  aids  we  now  have  to  a  limited  extent.  I 
refer  to  the  use  of  standard  samples,  such  as  are  issued 
by  the  Bureau  of  Standards,  following  the  practice  for 
some  time  in  vogue  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry  partic- 
ularly. The  larger  number  of  these  samples,  as  most  of 
you  know,  have  been  analyzed  by  eight  to  a  dozen 
chemists  who  are  expert  in  a  given  field  of  analysis  and 
the  averaged  results  are  supposed  to  represent  as  closely 
as  may  be  the  actual  composition  of  the  material  as  a 
whole  or  as  to  certain  of  its  constituents.  If  a  chemist  is 
able  to  analyze  one  of  these  samples  correctly  it  may  be 
presumed  that  his  technique  is  good  and  that  the  results 
he  obtains  on  the  same  type  of  material  of  unknown 
composition  are  to  be  trusted.  If  not,  then  either  his 
technique  or  his  methods  are  at  fault. 

In  addition  to  these  analyzed  samples,  the  Bureau  of 
Standards  has  issued  several  single  chemical  substances 
(thus  far  only  compounds  of  carbon)  of  the  highest  attain- 
able purity,  which  serve  as  standards  for  volumetric  or 
polarimetric  analysis,  or  for  calorimetry. 

The  value  of  such  aids  as  these  to  the  analyst  has  been 
very  great,  and  not  only  in  the  ways  indicated.  In 
connection  with  their  analysis,  prior  to  issuing  them, 
many  interesting  observations  have  been  made  upon  the 
relative  values  of  various  methods  in  common  use.  Our 
experience  at  the  Bureau  of  Standards,  extending  now 

16 


over  a  number  of  years,  has  shown  that  these  methods 
are  not  all  of  equal  trustworthiness,  and  that  one  or 
another  of  them  is  affected  by  hitherto  unsuspected 
errors,  either  inherent  in  the  method  as  practised  or  intro- 
duced by  the  presence  of  an  unlooked  for  element.  The 
errors  so  detected  may  be  very  small  and  for  some  pur- 
poses negligible,  but  their  existence  is  a  disturbing 
feature  and  one  which  is  sometimes  of  moment.  A  few 
illustrations  will  suffice  to  make  this  point  clear. 

(1)  There  are  several  methods  that  are  in  daily  use  for 
the  determination  of  phosphorus  in  steel.     Most  of  them 
depend  on  the  precipitation  of  the  phosphorus  as  ammo- 
nium-phospho-molybdate  and  many  are  the  articles  that 
have  been  written  bearing  on  the  proper  conditions  for 
forming  and  washing  the  precipitate.     The  wash  liquid 
used  in  the  alkalimetric  method,  which  is  probably  the 
most  widely  employed  of  any  of  the  methods,  is  a  one- 
per  cent,  solution  of  potassium  nitrate.     Work  done  at 
the  Bureau  of  Standards  recently  has  shown  that  the 
solubility  of  the  phosphorus-bearing  precipitate  in  this 
wash  solution,  even  in  the  absence  of  vanadium,  is  con- 
siderably more  than  has  been  suspected.     In  fact,  on  a 
high-phosphorus  product,  if  an  attempt  is  made  to  wash 
until  the  washings  are  neutral,  the  result  may  be  several 
hundredths  of  one  per  cent.  low.    This  appears  to  be  true 
whether  the  phospho-molybdate  is  precipitated  in  pres- 
ence or  absence  of  iron. 

(2)  The  so-called  evolution  method  for  determining 
sulphur  in  iron  and  steel  is  one  very  much  in  vogue  in 
industrial  laboratories  because  of  the  short  time  required 
for  the  determination.     In  it  the  sulphur  is  driven  out, 
mainly  in  the  form  of  hydrogen  sulphide,  by  boiling  the 
alloy  with  hydrochloric  acid,  and  collected  in  a  solution 
of  a  cadmium  salt  with  a  view  to  determining  the  sulphur 


by  titration'  with  iodine.  The  method  suffers,  however, 
from  defects,  some  of  which  are  understood  but  others 
not,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  very  discordant  results  that 
are  reported  by  different  analysts  upon  the  same  sample. 
So  far  as  can  be  determined  the  most  discordant  results 
are  sometimes  obtained  by  analysts  who  seem  to  follow 
precisely  the  same  procedure.  Evidently  there  is  room 
here  for  some  critical  research. 

(3)  Manganese  is  determined  in  irons  and  steels  by 
several  methods,  of  which  the  bismuthate  method  affords 
perhaps  the  most  concordant  results  in  different  hands 
when  carried  out  according  to  certain  closely  prescribed 
details  of  manipulation  and  standardization  of  volumetric 
solutions.    There  is  still  doubt,  however,  as  to  just  what 
the  conditions  should  be  for  obtaining  a  correct  end- 
point  in  the  titration. 

(4)  The    methods    in    use   for    the   determination    of 
tungsten  in  ferro-tungsten  failed  completely  in  a  partic- 
ular instance  that  was  brought  to  my  attention  by  the 
chemist  of  a  large  steel  plant.     Works  and  commercial 
analysts  differed  by  several  per  cent,  in  their  reported 
results.    A  partial  explanation  for  the  disagreement  was 
afforded  by  finding  columbium  to  be  present  in  the  alloy, 
an  element  hitherto  unnoticed  and  unsuspected  in  such 
material.    Attempts  to  devise  a  convenient  and  accurate 
method    to   meet   the   conditions   have   not   been   very 
successful,  so  far  as  I  am  aware.    Here,  again,  is  room  for 
an  interesting  study. 

(5)  In  the  analysis  of  a  brass,  one  of  the  Bureau  of 
Standard's   series  of  analyzed   samples,   somewhat  dis- 
cordant results  for  lead  were  reported  by  different  ana- 
lysts.    It  was  found  that  those  results  which  had  been 
obtained  by  depositing  the  lead  electrolytically  on  the 
anode  as  peroxide  involved  a  slight  error  by  reason  of 

18 


coprecipitation  of  small  amounts  of  silica  and  stannic 
oxide,  these  having  been  present  presumably  in  the  col- 
loidal form  in  the  solution  as  residuals  from  the  separa- 
tions that  had  preceded. 

These  examples  show  what  a  wide  field  there  is  for 
studies  of  a  very  refined  character  upon  many  of  the 
methods  that  are  in  wide  use  before  it  can  be  said  that 
we  really  know  them. 

Useful  as  standard  samples  are,  those  which  are 
employed  as  actual  checks  upon  analysis  do  not  fully 
meet  our  needs.  They  do  not  tell  the  analyst  wherein 
the  defect  of  his  method  may  lie,  if  defect  there  be.  How 
then  may  we  hope  further  to  benefit  the  increasing  body 
of  industrial  and  commercial  analysts,  and  instructors  as 
well,  who  have  no  time  for  trying  out  methods  of  direct 
determination  or  of  separation,  the  latter  involving  often 
more  difficulties  than  the  former? 

Before  attempting  to  answer  this  question  I  must  take 
up  the  subject  of  standard  methods  of  analysis.  By  a 
standard  method  is  meant,  in  a  restricted  sense,  one  which 
has  been  put  forth  by  a  body  of  recognized  standing, 
usually  a  committee  acting  under  the  auspices  of  some 
technical  organization,  for  use  in  determining  the  value 
of  a  particular  kind  or  type  of  material.  This  country 
has  taken  a  decided  lead  in  the  direction  indicated.  The 
following  quoted  paragraphs  are  repeated  from  a  paper 
yet  to  be  published  in  full  that  I  presented  to  the  Second 
Pan-American  Congress  nearly  a  year  ago. 

"  Most  by  far  of  the  so-called  standard  methods  are  so 
by  virtue  solely  of  their  having  been  put  forth  as  such  in 
a  recommendatory  way  by  some  organization  without 
imposing  any  obligation  on  any  one  to  follow  them.  This 
condition  takes  away  much  of  their  standing  in  compari- 
son with  those  methods  of  which  the  use  is  binding  upon 

19 


any  body  of  chemists.  There  are,  again,  those  methods 
which  have  been  proposed  as  standard  by  individuals 
and  are  generally  without  organized  backing.  It  is  thus 
evident  that  discrimination  must  be  exercised  in  deciding 
which  of  the  very  many  methods  put  forth  as  standard 
have  any  claim  to  be  considered  such. 

"The  main  arguments  against  standardizing  methods 
have  been:  (i)  That  the  individuality  of  the  analyst 
should  not  be  suppressed;  (2)  That  to  make  methods 
standard  would  tend  to  prevent  their  improvement  and 
to  discourage  search  for  better  methods;  and  (3)  That  a 
given  method  may  be  applicable  to  a  given  material  only 
within  a  narrow  range  of  its  possible  compositions,  as 
illustrated  by  pig  iron  and  steel. 

"The  answer  to  the  first  of  these  objections  is  that 
experience  has  shown  abundantly  that  for  commercial 
purposes  good  agreement  among  analysts  is  seldom  to  be 
hoped  for  unless  each  worker  uses  the  same  method  in 
which  every  step  and  condition  of  the  procedure  has  been 
minutely  prescribed.  It  is  for  commercial  purposes  that 
standard  methods  are  most  needed,  and  they  need  not 
always  be  the  most  exact  methods  if  the  latter  require 
the  expenditure  of  time  so  great  or  the  employment  of 
apparatus  so  expensive  as  to  defeat  the  end  in  view.  For 
many  umpire  analyses  and  for  those  upon  whose  results 
no  commercial  transactions  are  dependent,  the  analyst 
has  ordinarily  full  liberty  of  choice. 

"The  first  part  of  the  second  objection  rests  upon  a 
misapprehension.  In  the  minds  of  those  who  were 
pioneers  in  the  movement  for  standardization  it  was 
probably  never  contemplated  that  methods  once  adopted 
should  endure  beyond  the  life  of  their  usefulness.  Either 
the  committees  responsible  for  them  would  revise  them 
as  occasion  demanded  or  new  committees  would  under- 

20 


take  their  revision.  This  is  the  trend  of  intention  here 
in  the  United  States  and  undoubtedly  wherever  standard 
methods  have  obtained  a  foothold.  It  is,  further,  incon- 
ceivable that  the  establishment  of  standard  methods 
should  tend  to  discourage  attempts  to  improve  them  or 
to  substitute  better  ones  in  their  place.  If,  in  the  opinion 
of  its  users,  a  method  had  become  unequal  to  the  demands 
it  was  expected  to  meet,  considerable  credit  would  accrue 
to  him  who  should  bring  it  up  to  the  later  requirements 
or  secure  the  adoption  of  a  better.  Such  incentive  would 
always  suffice  to  prevent  stagnation  in  the  stream  of 
analytical  progress. 

"The  third  objection  must  be  admitted  to  be  well 
taken,  although  it  suffices  in  no  way  to  secure  the  con- 
demnation of  standard  methods  in  general.  The  difficulty 
referred  to  under  (3)  above  has  been  well  covered  by  Dr. 
Dudley  in  collaboration  with  Mr.  F.  N.  Pease  in  their 
paper3  read  before  the  World's  Congress  of  Chemists 
at  Chicago  in  1893.  Their  remedy — a  partial  one  only — 
calls  for  employment  of  a  variety  of  standard  samples  for 
a  given  material,  covering  adequately  its  usual  range  in 
composition,  of  each  of  which  samples  the  composition 
has  been  determined  accurately.  Iron  and  steel  are 
examples  of  this  kind.  If  then,  by  applying  his  method 
to  the  particular  standard  sample  which  lies  nearest  in 
character  and  composition  (mineral  as  well  as  chemical) 
to  the  material  he  is  to  test,  the  analyst  obtains  correct 
results,  he  is  usually  justified  in  concluding  that  the 
results  he  gets  in  the  ordinary  course  of  work  upon  similar 
material  are  also  correct. 

"The  use  of  standard  samples  does  away  in  a  measure 
with  the  need  of  standard  methods,  for  any  method  that 
will  yield  the  true  composition  of  the  standard  is  a  suit- 

3  Jour.  Am.  Chem.  Soc.,  Vol.  15,  p.  501  (1893). 

21 


able  one  for  a  given  analyst.  Even  so,  it  is  usually  only 
when  this  acceptable  method  is  employed  with  strict 
adherence  to  a  certain  procedure  that  it  yields  a  correct 
result.  Thus  prescribed  and  limited  by  a  competent 
authority  it  may  become  a  standard  method  for  use  in 
all  hands.  Nevertheless,  a  standard  method  is  not  al- 
ways applicable  to  a  complex  material  throughout  the 
whole  range  of  its  possible  compositions.  In  such  case 
modifications  of  the  method  must  be  used  suited  to 
the  special  conditions,  or  different  methods  altogether  are 
called  for.  The  determination  of  the  need  for  such  varia- 
tions or  changes  is  one  of  the  duties  of  the  committees 
entrusted  with  the  choice  or  formulation  of  standard 
methods.  These  committees  have  also  to  consider,  in 
special  cases,  the  need  of  a  refined  method  for  umpire 
work,  and  of  another  less  detailed  for  work  of  a  more 
routine  character." 

The  principles  which  should  lie  at  the  basis  of  a  stand- 
ard method  have  been  stated  by  me  in  a  paper  on  Stand- 
ard Methods  of  Sampling  and  Analysis  and  Standard 
Samples,4  as  follows: 

I. —  That  its  limits  of  accuracy  and  its  applicability 
are  clearly  defined  and  understood. 

2.—  That  it  should  yield  sufficiently  accurate  and 
concordant  results  in  the  hands  of  different  analysts. 

3.—  That  it  should  not  demand  such  close  adherence 
to  detail  or  such  manipulative  skill  and  judgment,  or 
such  time  consumption  as  to  affect  seriously  its  use- 
fulness. 

4. —  That  it  should  have  been  tested  upon  material  of 
high  purity  or  upon  material  carefully  analyzed  by 
independent  and  reliable  methods. 

5.—    That  the  results  obtainable  upon  a  given  class 

4  J.  Ind.  Eng.  Chem.,  Vol.  8,  p.  466  (1916). 

22 


of  materials  should  not  be  too  dependent  upon  the 
composition  (steel,  iron). 

These  principles,  however,  have  been  seldom  rigidly 
observed  as  to  the  methods  hitherto  offered.  Having 
been  prepared  as  a  rule  by  different  bodies  of  men  of 
varying  caliber  and  judgment,  and  sometimes  by  compila- 
tion of  existing  data  rather  than  by  direct  rigid  experi- 
mentation and  trial,  the  methods  are  of  very  unequal 
merit.  No  argument  seems  to  be  needed  to  support  the 
assertion  that  the  preparation  of  such  methods  should  be 
entrusted  only  to  men  of  much  experience  and  sound 
judgment,  who  have  ample  time  to  devote  to  most 
critical  study  of  them.  Unfortunately,  this  last  condition 
is  one  that  it  is  seldom  possible  to  meet.  The  conse- 
quence is  that  too  often  the  results  do  not  measure  up 
to  the  high  standard  that  should  attach  to  such  methods. 
Nevertheless,  an  admittedly  imperfect  method  is  better 
than  none  if  its  limitations  are  well  understood,  for  it 
affords  a  better  basis  for  fixing  the  value  of  many  articles 
of  commerce  than  a  variety  of  methods  of  uncertain 
relative  and  even  absolute  merit. 

There  is  another  requirement,  however,  without  which 
the  best  of  standard  methods  will  avail  little,  namely, 
reagents  of  uniformly  high  quality.  The  need  for  enforce- 
able specifications  for  reagents  has  long  been  apparent 
and  the  American  Chemical  Society  at  one  time  endeav- 
ored to  bring  about  improvement  in  the  quality  of 
reagents.  It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  an  exposition  of 
the  reasons  why  comparatively  little  came  of  this  attempt. 
Some  promise  of  relief  seemed  to  be  afforded,  however, 
by  the  appearance  on  the  market  of  'analyzed'  or 
'tested'  reagents,  the  bottles  bearing  statements  of  the 
nature  and  amounts  of  impurities  present,  or  that  certain 
possible  contaminants  were  absent.  But  it  soon  appeared 

23 


that  these  statements  could  not  be  taken  at  their  face 
value  without  risk,  and  the  situation  is  particularly 
deplorable  just  now.  The  following  recent  observations 
are  worth  recording. 

In  sodium  carbonate  purporting  to  be  free  from 
phosphorus  and  silica  both  were  present  in  amounts 
which  condemned  the  reagent  utterly  for  a  variety  of 
uses.  Sodium  hydroxide  was  found  to  be  very  impure, 
in  marked  contrast  with  the  statement  on  the  bottle. 
Sodium  sulphide  contained  not  only  much  thiosulphate 
or  polysulphide  but  was  black  with  iron  sulphide,  although 
said  to  be  free  from  iron.  Lead  chromate,  alleged  to 
carry  0.0003  Per  cent,  of  nitric  acid,  held  7  per  cent,  of 
lead  nitrate. 

No  condemnation  is  too  severe,  even  in  the  present 
times  of  stress,  for  the  manufacturer  who  so  mislabels 
his  wares.  We  certainly  need  a  new  law  or  an  extension 
of  the  Pure  Food  and  Drugs  Act  to  protect  the  chemist. 

Committee  work,  then,  as  hitherto  practised  does  not 
conduce  to  the  production  of  results  of  consistently  high 
standard.  My  experience  makes  me  feel  strongly  that 
the  advances  to  be  expected  through  committees  of  pro- 
fessional societies  are  too  often  slight,  and  are  secured  at 
a  cost  of  time  and  effort  quite  incommensurate  with  the 
gains.  This  is  especially  true  because:  (a)  It  is  difficult 
to  hold  the  necessary  frequent  conferences  of  members 
widely  separated,  from  which  it  results  too  often  that  the 
approval  of  a  society  is  given  to  what  is  practically  one 
man's  work;  (b)  the  members  of  committees  sometimes 
lack  a  real  conception  of  what  a  standard  method  should 
be  in  the  light  of  the  criteria  by  which  they  should  be 
judged;  (c)  if  competent  in  this  respect,  the  members  are 
not  often  able  to  devote  the  needed  time  to  actual  and 
painstaking  experimental  work;  (d)  different  methods 

24 


are  in  the  hands  of  different  committees,  without  direct 
control  by  some  head  which  has  authority  and  is  compe- 
tent to  see  and  direct  that  the  fundamental  principles 
are  observed  and  followed  in  each  and  every  case,  to  the 
end  that  the  results  shall  be  uniformly  of  high  grade  and 
consistently  reported. 

These  and  other  considerations  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  such  work  should  be  in  the  hands  of  a  permanently 
constituted  body  of  well-salaried  men  under  a  director 
of  the  very  highest  ability  as  an  analyst  and  of  excellent 
tact  and  judgment.  These  men  should  be  appointed  only 
with  the  expectation  that  they  are  entering  upon  their 
life-work.  It  should  be  the  intention  to  retain  at  all 
reasonable  cost  the  services  of  those  who  prove  thoroughly 
acceptable.  Acceptability  includes  of  course  not  only 
analytical  skill,  but  also  diligence,  absolute  honesty,  and 
the  highest  conception  of  the  dignity  of  this  work.  The 
beginnings  of  such  an  enterprise  would  be  beset  with 
uncertainties  and  the  output  not  always  of  the  desired 
quality,  but  as  the  men  gained  experience  and  insight  into 
the  fundamentals  of  their  general  work,  improvement 
would  come  and  in  the  end  there  would  be  gathered  in 
this  institution  a  band  of  men  of  unrivaled  experience 
and  knowledge,  whose  recommendations  would  carry 
such  weight  that  little  hesitation  would  be  manifested  by 
technical  societies  and  legislative  and  industrial  bodies  in 
giving  them  their  formal  and  practical  sanction. 

But  the  field  of  work  for  an  institution  of  this  kind 
should  not  be  restricted  to  the  comparative  study  of 
different  methods  that  are  applicable  to  the  determina- 
tion of  one  or  more  elements  in  a  given  class  of  materials, 
such  as  irons  and  steels,  brasses  and  bearing  metals,  but 
should  include  the  preparation,  analysis,  and  issuing  of 
standard  samples  of  many  kinds,  both  commercial  articles 

25 


for  direct  checking  of  analysis  and  pure  substances  and 
solutions  intended  for  calorimetric,  volumetric,  and  other 
uses. 

Furthermore,  and  this  is  very  important,  the  institution 
should  not  act  independently  of  the  many  industries 
which  it  is  established  to  aid,  but  should  tactfully  main- 
tain the  closest  and  most  sympathetic  relations  with  them 
all,  inviting  indeed  cooperation  of  the  most  intimate 
nature.  Such  cooperation  would  be  very  valuable  often- 
times in  exposing  difficulties,  and  thus  indicating  the 
directions  which  research  in  the  central  laboratory  should 
take.  It  should  include  occasional  visits  to  and  from  the 
laboratories  of  one  side  and  the  other  for  consultation 
and  the  actual  carrying  out  of  analytical  operations, 
whereby  misunderstandings  may  be  sometimes  cleared 
up  and  the  causes  of  differences  ascertained  more  readily 
than  by  any  amount  of  correspondence. 

The  institution  should  also  be  a  court  of  last  resort  in 
disputes  as  to  the  value  of  articles  of  commerce  that  are 
subject  to  chemical  test,  not  only  as  to  the  correct  chemi- 
cal composition  but  also  with  regard  to  the  causes  for 
the  differing  results  reported  by  others,  and,  in  general, 
should  be  a  clearing  house  of  information  and  a  source 
of  inspiration  in  all  that  relates  to  chemical  analysis. 

Before  taking  up  the  next  phase  of  my  general  proposi- 
tion, it  is  desirable  that  the  functions  which  the  proposed 
institution  should  eventually  exercise  be  clearly  under- 
stood. At  the  risk  of  some  repetition  I  will  therefore 
summarize  and  for  convenience  group  them  under  the 
three  heads,  Research  Work,  Referee  Work,  and  Educa- 
tional Work. 

A.  Under  Research  Work  fall:  (a)  critical  comparison 
of  methods  of  analysis  in  use  or  proposed  for  different 
classes  of  materials  in  the  light  of  the  criteria  already 

26 


presented;  (b)  improvement  of  existing  methods  when 
possible  and  devising  of  new  ones  if  the  old  are  inade- 
quate; (c)  recommendation  of  the  methods  found  to  be 
best  suited  for  commercial  needs,  accompanied  by  com- 
plete and  unambiguous  details  of  procedure  together  with 
a  statement  of  the  accuracy  ordinarily  attainable;  (d) 
determination  of  the  causes  of  disagreement  in  the  results 
of  analysis  of  the  same  material  by  different  analysts ;  and 
(e)  preparation  of  specifications  for  reagents. 

B.  Referee  Work  covers:    (a)   the  making  of   umpire 
analyses  in  cases  of  irreconcilable  disagreement  between 
different  analysts;  and  (b)  the  preparation  and  issuing  of 
standard  samples  for  checking  methods  and  the  skill  of 
analysts,  for  volumetric  analysis,  and  for  the  calibration  of 
instruments  such  as  polarimeters  and  calorimetric  bombs. 

C.  Educational    Work   involves:    (a)    coordination    of 
researches  in  progress,  so  that  the  results  when  available 
will  be  better  suited  for  intercomparison  and  therefore 
more  useful ;  (b)  assisting  in  the  wider  adoption  of  stand- 
ards and  methods  already  accepted  and  found   to  be 
satisfactory ;  (c)  study  of  and  recommendations  regarding 
the  best  methods  of  teaching  analytical  chemistry;  (d) 
preparation  and  publication  of  bibliographies  upon  ana- 
lytical  chemistry;   and    (e)    answering   questions   of   all 
kinds  relating  to  chemical  analysis. 

I  have  purposely  refrained  from  including  methods  of 
physical  testing,  for  fear  of  overstepping  the  legitimate 
field  of  an  institution  intended  for  chemical  research. 
However,  it  might  be  proper  to  consider  eventually  if 
many  methods  of  physical  testing  that  are  ordinarily 
employed  by  chemists  should  not  be  regarded  as  falling 
within  the  scope  of  an  institution  of  the  kind  proposed. 
In  any  event  it  should  cooperate  in  the  coordination  of 
the  results  of  chemical  and  physical  testing. 

27 


At  the  present  time  much  of  the  literature  published 
as  the  result  of  researches  and  investigations  is  of  such 
nature  as  to  make  the  results  of  limited  value,  largely 
because  the  investigation  was  not  suitably  planned  or 
the  results  adequately  recorded  and  reported  to  permit 
of  comparison  of  one  worker's  findings  with  those  of 
others  who  have  preceded  him.  A  permanent  body 
which  could  obviate  such  a  large  amount  of  wasted  effort 
as  is  now  evidenced  would  in  this  field  alone  accomplish 
a  great  good  for  our  science.  Many  investigators  would 
be  glad  to  avail  themselves  of  its  advice  and  criticism, 
and  in  many  cases  the  scientific  results  put  forth  from 
our  educational  institutions  and  private  laboratories 
might,  through  the  coordinating  influence  of  such  a  body, 
be  made  of  greatly  increased  value. 

Let  us  now  consider  how  such  an  institution  might  be 
brought  into  being.  There  occur  to  me  but  three  ways: 
(i)  through  one  of  the  existing  scientific  bureaus  of  the 
federal  Government,  preferably  and  naturally  the  Bureau 
of  Standards;  (2)  through  endowment  and  control  inde- 
pendent of  the  Government;  and  (3)  through  private 
endowment  under  some  form  of  federal  trusteeship. 

The  first  and  second  of  these  plans  have  their  advan- 
tages and  disadvantages,  which  will  be  now  set  forth. 

In  favor  of  the  first  is  the  prestige  which  governmental 
support  and  control  would  lend.  Although  on  first 
thought  it  may  not  always  be  easy  to  see  why  prestige 
should  attach  to  the  decisions  of  a  bureau  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  so  much  greater  degree  than  to  an  independent 
establishment,  that  it  usually  does  is  a  fact  that  has  been 
many  times  borne  in  upon  me. 

The  prestige  attached  to  the  Government  is  based  on 
several  factors,  of  which  it  is  not  easy  to  estimate  the 
relative  potencies.  One  is  that  the  National  Government 

28 


represents  the  interests  of  all  the  people,  that  it  is  dis- 
interested, having  no  small  group  to  serve  exclusively, 
that  it  seeks  the  welfare  of  the  lowly  as  well  as  the  exalted, 
that  owing  to  this  sense  of  responsibility  and  account- 
ability serious  scientific  work  undertaken  by  the  Govern- 
ment is  usually  conducted  in  a  manner  to  command  the 
respect  of  the  scientific  world.  These  two  factors  have 
supplemented,  perhaps,  a  third,  which  is  that  the  people 
regard  the  Government  as  a  coordinating  center  having 
to  do  with  matters  of  general  concern,  so  that  when  the 
Government  speaks  it  is  usually  not  the  opinion  of  an 
individual  but  with  the  authority  of  the  entire  Govern- 
ment and  for  the  entire  people.  That  the  public  looks  up 
to  its  Uncle  Sam  as  counselor  and  adviser  is  attested  by 
the  innumerable  inquiries  that  come  daily  in  his  mail 
from  all  parts  of  the  country.  The  conscientious  attention 
paid  to  these  inquiries  has  had  no  small  share  in  molding 
public  opinion. 

The  readiness  with  which  all  interests  cooperate  freely 
with  Government  agencies  is  especially  marked  in  cooper- 
ative scientific  research.  As  the  essence  of  the  proposed 
institution  would  be  cooperation  in  fundamental  chemical 
research  the  Government  plan  would  present  a  strong 
case.5 

Evidence  that  prestige  attaches  in  the  minds  of  chem- 
ists, as  distinguished  from  the  general  public,  to  state- 
ments issuing  from  Government  institutions  is  afforded 
by  a  very  evident  tendency  toward  the  use  of  methods  of 
testing  that  are  employed  by  the  Government.  This 
tendency  is  particularly  manifest  with  regard  to  methods 
that  are  used  for  checking  up  deliveries  under  specifica- 

5  A  slight  disinclination  is  apparent  to  full  and  frank  cooperative  work  where 
commercial  or  personal  interests  are  involved.  Such  unfavorable  tendency  of 
private  work  has  resulted  in  appeals  to  the  Government  to  take  up  lines  of  work 
where  conditions  are  more  favorable. 

29 


tions.  It  is  true  that  the  desire  to  copy  may  not  be  based 
always  on  acknowledged  superiority  of  the  Government 
methods,  but  rather  on  the  wish  to  reduce  the  probability 
of  rejection  of  deliveries,  by  use  on  the  part  of  the  manu- 
facturer before  delivery  of  the  same  method  that  is  to 
determine  the  question  of  acceptance  or  rejection.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  the  result  tends  to  bring  about  in  a  very 
natural  way  a  more  general  and  desirable  uniformity  of 
procedure.  If  this  is  the  effect,  it  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  Government  laboratories  should  be  awake 
always  to  the  importance  of  maintaining  and  improving 
the  accuracy  of  their  methods  and  further  that  they 
should  be  afforded  encouragement  and  every  facility  to 
enable  them  to  live  up  to  these  requirements. 

An  additional  argument  for  having  this  work  done  at 
the  Bureau  of  Standards  is  the  help  that  would  come 
through  its  facilities  in  physics.  The  chemical  institution 
proposed  would  need  to  utilize  the  standardizing  facilities 
of  the  Bureau  named  for  all  measuring  apparatus  and  to 
a  considerable  extent  the  optical  work  would  have  a 
material  bearing  upon  chemical  work,  especially  in  the 
newer  fields  of  spectro-chemistry,  refractometry,  and 
physico-chemical  methods  generally.  It  would  seem 
undesirable  to  duplicate  this  expensive  equipment  if  it 
can  be  made  available  for  the  chemical  work  under 
consideration. 

It  has  long  been  my  hope  that  at  the  Bureau  of  Stand- 
ards we  might  gradually  build  up  a  section  which  should 
be  the  clearing  house  in  all  matters  of  the  kind  under 
discussion.  We  are  frequently  asked  to  settle  disputes 
regarding  the  content  of  a  given  element  or  compound  in 
a  great  variety  of  materials  and  to  give  information  on 
all  manner  of  analytical  procedures.  Our  ability  to  grant 
such  requests  has  been,  however,  far  too  limited  from  lack 

30 


of  a  sufficient  number  of  specially  trained  analysts  and 
the  inability  of  those  we  have  to  spare  the  requisite  time 
for  such  problems.  These  problems  often  involve  a 
considerable  amount  of  research,  for  our  aim  is  not  only 
to  determine  the  true  value  of  the  material  in  question 
but  also  to  ascertain  if  possible  the  causes  of  the  differ- 
ences reported  by  others.  I  regard  this  latter  point  as  of 
even  greater  importance  than  the  former  because  of  its 
educational  value.  Under  the  present  conditions  of 
federal  support  I  see  little  prospect  of  a  full  realization 
of  my  hope.  The  cost  of  upkeep  of  such  a  division  would 
be  out  of  proportion  to  that  of  other  phases  of  the  Bu- 
reau's activities,  for  its  complete  realization  would  be 
financially  equivalent  to  establishing  a  new  institution. 

Other  serious  objections  to  support  and  control  by  the 
Government  are:  (i)  the  instability  of  a  work  that  is 
dependent  on  annual  Congressional  appropriations;  (2) 
the  likelihood  that  at  any  moment  in  emergencies  the  men 
engaged  may  be  called  upon  to  assist  in  entirely  foreign 
kinds  of  work;  (3)  the  restrictions  of  the  civil  service 
regulations  and  the  inflexibility  of  the  salaries  attaching 
to  all  statutory  positions.  The  objections  enumerated 
are  very  important,  for  without  assurance  of  permanency 
and  continuity  of  work  the  success  of  such  a  scheme  as  I 
have  suggested  would  be  highly  problematical  and  its 
lasting  or  even  temporary  interruption  when  once  estab- 
lished little  short  of  calamitous. 

The  restrictions  under  the  third  objection  make  it 
difficult  or  impossible  in  the  first  place  to  select  men  for 
particular  kinds  of  work,  or  to  give  timely  promotions  to 
deserving  men,  or  even  to  appoint  anyone  unless  a  vacancy 
happens  to  exist  in  the  grade  for  which  a  desired  man  is 
qualified.  This  lack  of  flexibility  in  the  appointment  of 
new  men  and  the  promotion  of  old  and  tried  ones  is  one 


of  the  most  serious  handicaps  to  efficiency  in  Government 
service.  These  statements  are  in  no  way  to  be  taken  as 
condemnatory  of  the  principles  for  which  civil  service 
stands,  for  the  situation  in  Government  service,  even  with 
the  limitations  stated,  is  vastly  better  than  it  was  before 
the  Civil  Service  Commission  was  established,  when 
political  influence  controlled  appointments,  promotions, 
and  dismissals  in  no  small  degree.  The  particular  objec- 
tion that  statutory  salaries  are  inflexible  might  be  met  by 
the  provision  of  a  special  fund,  as  has  been  many  times 
done  for  other  purposes.  Such  funds  are  less  subject  to 
salary  restriction  than  those  called  statutory,  but  Con- 
gress has  been  wont  to  look  upon  them  with  disfavor. 
The  objection  that  was  based  on  the  uncertainty  of 
Congressional  appropriations  would  not  hold  so  much 
for  a  separate  bureau  or  establishment  as  for  the  supposed 
case  of  merger  with  an  existing  bureau.  This  follows 
from  the  fact  that  the  effect  of  Congressional  action  is 
far  less  likely  to  result  in  abolishing  or  even  hampering 
seriously  the  work  as  a  whole  of  an  established  Bureau 
than  of  one  of  its  divisions. 

In  favor  of  independent  endowment  is  the  greater 
stability  in  a  certain  sense  of  an  institution  so  supported 
and  a  greater  freedom  of  action  and  choice  of  men,  offset 
in  a  measure  by  its  lower  prestige.  This  latter  weakness 
might  hold  more  during  the  earlier  years  of  its  existence, 
for  under  proper  guidance  there  would  seem  to  be  no 
reason  why  it  should  not  in  time  merit  and  obtain  much, 
if  not  all,  that  now  attaches  to  institutions  fostered  by 
the  Government.  The  greater  stability  alluded  to  lies, 
however,  rather  in  a  surer  continuity  of  existence  than 
in  certainty  that  the  institution  will  be  able  always  to 
fulfill  its  functions  in  full  measure.  In  times  of  stress  or 
through  unfortunate  investments  the  income  might  be 

32 


much  curtailed  or  even  cut  off  entirely,  contingencies 
which  Government  establishments  may  be  less  concerned 
about. 

There  is  this  to  be  said  further  in  favor  of  independent 
endowment  and  control,  that  if  the  control  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  technical  organizations  most  concerned 
chemists  would  come  to  regard  the  institution  as  more 
peculiarly  their  own  child,  in  the  growth  and  performance 
of  which  each  might  take  pride  but  for  whose  conduct 
they  themselves  alone  would  be  responsible.  Certainly 
the  time  is  ripe  for  chemists  to  be  represented  by  a 
national  institution  which  should  serve  for  fundamental 
work  of  interest  to  all  chemists  the  same  function  that 
private  and  industrial  laboratories  serve  for  their  clients. 

A  compromise  between  these  radically  different  sug- 
gestions for  support  and  control  remains  to  be  considered, 
namely,  through  private  endowment  under  some  measure 
of  federal  control,  either  of  the  funds  or  the  work.  The 
Smithsonian  Institution  is  a  well-known  example  of 
federal  administration  of  a  private  bequest  with  control 
of  appointments  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission.  The 
relation  of  the  Bureau  of  Mines  to  its  work  on  radium 
and  some  other  experimental  researches  is  suggestive  of 
how  Government  supervision  of  work  might  be  made 
compatible  with  outside  control  of  all  expenditures  except, 
perhaps,  for  the  salary  of  the  Government  official  in 
charge.  If  Congress  could  be  persuaded  to  contribute 
a  building  and  to  locate  it  on  the  grounds  of  the  Bureau 
of  Standards,  where  its  staff  would  be  in  close  touch  with 
men  engaged  in  many  fields  of  testing  and  research, 
physical  as  well  as  chemical,  the  conditions  might  be 
ideal  for  attaining  the  maximum  of  success.  Such  juxta- 
position might  fail  in  its  aim,  however,  if  salaries  in  the 
two  neighboring  laboratories  had  no  common  basis. 

33 


Stated  a  little  differently  this  means  that  salaries  for 
statutory  positions  under  the  Government  ought  to  be 
materially  increased,  for  as  already  intimated,  I  regard 
the  payment  of  adequate  compensation  as  vital  to  the 
success  of  my  general  proposition. 

The  kind,  degree,  and  manner  of  control  to  be  exercised 
by  the  Government  would  need  careful  consideration, 
particularly  with  respect  to  the  choice  of  the  staff,  for  if 
with  any  sort  of  Government  control  appointments  could 
be  made  only  through  the  civil  service  a  serious  hindrance 
to  successful  operation  would  arise. 

Finally,  the  question  must  be  asked:  What  is  the 
likelihood  of  such  an  establishment  ever  becoming  a 
realization?  To  this  no  answer  is  immediately  at  hand. 
Certainly  nothing  will  come  of  the  proposal  if  it  does  not 
meet  with  the  approval  of  the  best  judgment  among 
chemists,  and  then  still  nothing  unless  a  popular  sentiment 
in  its  favor  is  awakened,  nourished  and  made  to  grow  by 
persistent  discussion.  The  needed  impulse  and  the 
demand  created,  the  rest  should  not  be  so  difficult  now 
that  we  are  awakening  to  the  importance  of  chemistry  to 
the  life  of  the  nation.  The  interests  of  the  great  chemical 
industries,  or  of  industries  at  whose  foundations  chemistry 
lies,  could  surely  be  depended  upon  to  create,  through 
endowment  or  influence  upon  Congress,  an  institute  for 
analytical  research  which  would  be  the  first  of  its  kind 
and  which  would  help  to  place  this  country  in  the  very 
forefront  of  progress  among  nations.  The  industries 
have  received  so  much  from  pure  science  in  the  past 
without  adequate  return  that  the  time  seems  ripe  for 
them  to  contribute  generously  towards  its  further  devel- 
opment, especially  along  lines  which  promise  so  much  to 
themselves  as  those  which  I  have  indicated.  It  might 
even  be  that  some  private  benefactor  would  arise  to  do 

34 


for  chemistry  what  has  been  so  magnificently  done  for 
astronomy,  terrestrial  physics,  biology,  and  the  study  of 
the  causes  and  prevention  of  disease.  Given  a  properly 
prepared  field  I  do  not  feel  that  I  am  over-optimistic, 
considering  the  wave  of  interest  in  matters  pertaining 
to  chemistry  that  is  sweeping  over  the  country.  The 
preparation  of  the  field  should  be  intrusted  to  a  carefully 
selected  and  energetic  committee. 

I  have  already  intimated  that,  whatever  plan  might  be 
adopted,  the  closest  cooperation  should  be  sought  and 
maintained  with  the  industries.  Indeed,  an  advisory 
board  of  outsiders  should  be  selected  to  assist  the  director 
in  the  planning  and  administration  of  the  scientific  work, 
and  the  connection  of  this  board  with  the  affairs  of  the 
institution  should  be  very  real  and  not  nominal.  The 
laboratory  itself  should  be,  however,  in  no  way  debarred 
from  taking  the  initiative  without  reference  to  the  board 
proposed.  Indeed,  the  laboratory  force  would  often  be 
in  far  better  position  to  know  or  learn  the  weak  points  in 
current  procedure  than  any  advisory  body. 

Here  let  me  interject  parenthetically  a  word  on  a 
subject  that  has  been  far  too  much  neglected  by  chemists 
in  the  past.  It  seems  that  now  is  the  time  when  they 
should  bring  pressure  to  bear  to  secure  that  share  of 
official  as  well  as  private  recognition  which  is  their  right 
by  reason  of  the  immense  importance  of  their  work  to 
the  general  welfare.  The  relative  ease  with  which  hun- 
dreds of  millions  of  dollars  are  obtained  for  military 
purposes  offers  a  startling  contrast  to  the  almost  complete 
indifference  of  the  great  scientific  interests  of  the  country 
to  Government  aid  to  science.  Without  raising  contro- 
versy over  the  relative  value  of  military  and  scientific 
preparedness  it  is  certainly  true  that  if  the  scientific 
societies  presented  their  case  for  Government  aid  to 

35 


science  with  a  fraction  of  the  efficiency  with  which  the 
case  for  national  defense  has  been  prepared,  there  is 
scarcely  any  ideal  for  such  an  institution  that  could  not 
be  promptly  realized.  It  is  time  that  chemists  entered 
the  field  far  more  than  they  have  done  to  show  how  they 
can  contribute  to  the  general  welfare  and  what  they  need 
in  the  way  of  countenance  and  support. 

It  would  be  going  too  far  afield  at  this  early  stage  to 
propose  even  tentative  details  for  the  organization  and 
conduct  of  the  proposed  establishment,  which  some  of 
you  will  perhaps  recognize  as  patterned  in  its  objects  and 
scope  somewhat  after  the  international  institute  for 
chemistry  that  Professor  Wilhelm  Ostwald  advocated  in 
great  detail  a  few  years  ago.6  Ostwald  had  in  mind  an 
institute  of  international  scope  to  cover  the  whole  vast 
domain  of  chemistry.  I  propose  one  of  more  restricted 
and  only  of  national  scope.  What  might  grow  out  of  a 
well-established  and  successful  organization  in  the  United 
States  with  respect  to  international  cooperation  may  be 
left  for  the  future  to  determine.  World-wide  cooperation 
from  the  start  would  be  ideal,  but  even  under  normal 
conditions  the  task  would  be  herculean,  as  it  is  at  present 
impossible  of  accomplishment.  Let  us  therefore  proceed 
with  only  our  own  immediate  needs  in  view,  in  the  cer- 
tainty that  if  our  initiative  succeeds  others  will  copy  and 
that  when  the  time  is  ripe  we  may  expect  to  lead  in 
bringing  about  the  broad  world  cooperation  that  must 
eventually  come. 

6  Only  after  this  address  was  prepared  did  that  of  Professor  G.  G.  Henderson, 
President  of  the  Chemical  Section  of  the  British  Association  for  the  Advancement 
of  Science,  Newcastle-on-Tyne,  1916,  come  to  my  attention.  Professor  Hender- 
son's address  contains  observations  and  suggestions  which  parallel  in  a  measure 
portions  of  my  lecture,  although  without  specific  reference  to  analytical  chemistry. 


RETURN     CHEMISTRY  LIBRARY 

TO— *     100  Hildebrand  Hall  642-3753 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 


1  MONTH 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
Renewable  by  telephone 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD5,  3m,  12/80          BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


